Reference no: EM131045401

Max Baldwin

A friend of yours knows that you are quite knowledgeable in employment law, and he asks you if you would talk to his brother, Max Baldwin. Max is a forty-five year old master electrician who works for PECO Energy Company and is a longstanding member of the IBEW (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) who represent about 22% of PECO's workforce. Max was warned repeatedly in the past - and last Tuesday he was fired - for talking about union business while on company premises, but on his break time in the company break room. (Questions 1-5 concern your advice to Max).

1. Can they fire Max for talking about the union in the break room on his break time?

a. Yes, under the doctrine of employment-at-will
b. No, under the public policy exception to the doctrine of employment-at-will
c. This is covered by labor law (not this class) because Max has union representation
d. This is covered by contract law (not this class) because Max has an individual contract of employment
e. It is impossible to answer this question without knowing the federal jurisdiction

2. As a worker represented by a union, is Max typical of American workers?

a. Yes, more than half of American workers are represented by a union
b. Trick question! The American worker population is evenly split between union and nonunion workers
c. No, only a small minority of about one in ten American workers is unionized
d. No, only a small minority of about one in a hundred American workers is unionized

3. Is Max subject to firing due to bad performance if he is properly written up?

a. Possibly; Max can only be fired under the employment-at-will doctrine
b. Yes, but only if the company's own policies and procedures are followed exactly
c. Possibly; Max can only be fired for "just cause"
d. No, union members must be trained or transferred if they exhibit poor performance
e. Yes, but only if the employer is able to prove a BFOQ

4. The body of law known as "employment law" that we are studying in class applies to:

a. Nonunion employees
b. Independent contractors
c. Union employees
d. All of the above answers a, b, and c are correct
e. None of the answers a, b, or c is correct

5. You inform Max that the terms and conditions of his employment (including whether he can be fired and for what reasons) are contained in a document agreed to by his employer and his union. This document is called his:

a. Individual contract of employment (ICE)
b. Noncompetition agreement (NCA)
c. Collective bargaining agreement (CBA)
d. Independent contractor agreement (ICA)
e. Human Employment Letter of Legal Obligations (HELLO)

Google, Inc.
Congratulations! You have just been hired as a human resource management generalist for Google - you will be doing a little of a lot of different things. Google has operations in all U.S. states and territories and employs (as of the 2nd quarter of 2014) over 40,000 permanent workers. No workers are represented by a union, as Google is an entirely nonunion company.(Questions 6-11 deal with some initial questions you need to answer in your role.)

6. Google needs to be sure not to discriminate in employment on the basis of which categories under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended?

a. Race, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender
b. Race, national origin, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and gender
c. Race, national origin, color, religion, gender, and disability
d. Race, national origin, ethnicity, color, creed, religion, and gender
e. Race, national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, age, and creed

7. Carlos applies for a programmer job, but he is sight impaired to a serious degree. He must have his service dog with him at all times, whether he is inside a building or out, at a meeting with clients or working on his own. Sarah works directly with the programmers, but she is terrified of dogs. What law would most impact your decision as to whether to allow Carlos to have his dog with him?

a. The ADEA
b. The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress
c. Disparate impact theory
d. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
e. The ADA

8. Referring to Carlos (from the previous question), you've noticed that he doesn't wear dark glasses and his eyes often roll in different directions. If someone isn't used to it, it could be disconcerting. You are concerned about the client contact required for this job and are afraid some clients may feel uncomfortable interacting with Carlos. Could you hire him but give him his own office away from other coworkers and restrict his projects to ones that do not require as much client or coworker interaction, so that his eyes and his dog will not bother them?

a. Probably yes, because there is no protected category at issue
b. Probably not, under Title VII
c. Probably not, because that could be discriminating against Carlos under the ADA
d. Probably not, because that could be discriminating against Carlos under the Fourth Amendment

9. One of the problems that Google has, surprisingly, is providing enough parking for their employees. Carissa, a long-term employee of Google, is eight months pregnant. She is having a very hard time walking from her car to the building. She complains that she needs to use one of the "disabled" spots, just until she goes out on maternity leave. She knows that Charles from Marketing got special permission to do that when he broke his leg skiing and Jessica from Accounting also parks there because of a heart condition. If you are looking at the legal requirements of Google to accommodate her request, what is your best legal thought line of inquiry?

a. Maybe let her park in the disabled spot; to do otherwise could be disability discrimination under the ADA
b. Maybe let her park in the disabled spot; to do otherwise could be gender discrimination under Title VII
c. Maybe let her park in the disabled spot; to do otherwise might be harassment
d. Don't let her park in the disabled spot because in employment, HR must treat all employees the same to guarantee fair and nondiscriminatory treatment
e. It would depend on whether Carissa provided appropriate documentation that she needed unpaid leave FLSA for her pregnancy

10. Referring to Carissa (from the previous question), what is your best conclusion as a human resources professional?

a. Whatever the law requires is what the company should do
b. Whatever the law requires and good management (economic) concerns dictate is what the company should do
c. Whatever the law requires and good management (economic) concerns dictate and what is ethical is what the company should do
d. It depends entirely on what has been specified by the company in the employee handbook
e. It depends entirely on how pregnant workers have been treated in the past on this issue (stare decisis)

11. Google likes to hire workers fresh out of college because they have just been trained in the latest technologies. As a result, Google has a relatively young workforce and has been sued for age discrimination in the federal courts a number of times. Older workers feel they aren't as valued as the younger workers and have claimed that Google has set up a culture of age discrimination. Google responds that it just wants to be sure that everyone in the company speaks the same "techie" language. You are asked for your expert opinion on a new policy to meet both concerns, proposed by the senior VP of Research and Development: Can Google require that all applicants over fifty years old pass a technology test to see if they are up to date with the modern market? If they pass the exam, there are no concerns at all that everyone is at least coming in with the same technology awareness. Your opinion on whether they should implement this policy?

a. Do it! If you aren't young in the tech sector, you at least have to be up to date.
b. Do it! Older workers likely won't know as much of the newer technologies
c. Caution!Requiring the test of only older workers might be violating the ADEA
d. Caution! Requiring the test of only older workers might be violating the ADA
e. Selection exams violate disparate impact theory
Still at Google, in California with Raina and Steve

In July 2013, Raina, an African-American woman, applied for a job as an account analyst in the Sacramento, California location. She was qualified for the job, but the interview didn't go as well as she thought it did. After the interview, Steve, the on-site manager, wrote a memo to the file stating "Raina undoubtedly has the educational background and the intelligence to do the job. Her references are excellent. She is probably one of the smartest people I've ever interviewed. Her abrasive and abrupt manner, however, were severely off-putting. I just don't think she'd work well with the team, which is a laid-back and friendly group. She seems too competitive and may be difficult for others to work well with." He decides not to offer her the job, and to keep looking.

Raina is deeply disappointed not to get the job. She is furious to see it is still being advertised on monster.com, as she assumed she lost out to a more qualified job candidate. Instead, it seems they'd rather keep on looking for someone than to hire her! She's so mad, she hires a lawyer named Dusty. Dusty works for Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe - a prestigious law firm in Sacramento. Dusty is so excited to have his first big case, he goes right to court with his complaint on Raina's behalf.

12. Dusty (the lawyer, who is fresh out of law school) writes Google a letter explaining that he has filed suit in federal court in Sacramento on the basis of how Raina has been treated. He forgets to mention which court he has filed in, and also forgets to enclose a copy of the complaint. Your boss asks you if you could track down that information. You say, "Sure!" because you know that Dusty has filed in ...

a. the U.S. District Court (whichever one is in Sacramento)
b. the U.S. Court of Appeals (whichever one is in Sacramento)
c. the U.S. Court of Common Pleas (whichever one is in Sacramento)
d. the U.S. Court of Labor and Employment Complaints (whichever one is in Sacramento)
e. the California State Employment Court of Appeals

13. When you show up in the correct court to ask the clerk for a copy of the complaint, you ask for:

a. the complaint where Google is the appellant and Raina is the defendant
b. the complaint where Google is the defendant and Raina is the plaintiff
c. the complaint where Raina is the defendant and Google is the plaintiff
d. the complaint where Google is the plaintiff and Raina is the appellee
e. the complaint where Raina is the petitioner and Google is the defendant

14. Your next task is to contact one of the attorneys Google uses in California. You call Jeff Wheep, a senior partner at Readhem and Wheep, a small firm outside of Sacramento. You talk about the complaint, agree to fax him a copy, and you tell him that Dusty (the other lawyer) is fresh out of law school and obviously doesn't know what he is doing. The complaint doesn't even state a claim the way it is drafted - you can't even tell what law they are relying on for their cause of action! It certainly doesn't allege the prima facie elements under Title VII. What are you going to tell Jeff Wheepyou want him to do?

a. File a motion with prejudice because Raina can't bring her lawsuit in federal court
b. File a motion for summary judgment because Raina states no proof in her complaint
c. File a motion to dismiss because Raina has no proof that Steve intentionally discriminated
d. File a motion for summary judgment because Raina hasn't stated an actionable claim
e. File a motion to dismiss because Raina hasn't stated an actionable claim

15. Jeff Wheep is thrilled with your legal knowledge and savvy. He says that he can think of another big problem with the complaint. What is it?

a. Raina has not stated a prima facie case
b. Raina has not relied on the doctrine of stare decisis
c. Raina has not exhausted her administrative remedies
d. Raina has not pursued arbitration
e. Raina has not suffered an adverse employment action

16. Attorney Wheep wants to meet to discuss the facts of the case and get ready for the discovery stage. Why would he say this if he was going to file the motion?

a. He doesn't think the motion will be granted
b. He is anticipating that Raina will refile her case
c. He is trying to run up your legal bill
d. He is worried about the EEOC
e. He is a nut job

17. You agree to meet with Attorney Jeff Wheep to prepare for the discovery stage. You'll need to share all the facts you know about Raina's interview with Steve. After he files the motion you discussed, what will Jeff be trying to get ready to do at this point?

a. Start writing an answer to her complaint, if necessary
b. Start drafting some questions to ask Raina at her deposition, if necessary
c. Draft some interrogatories and document requests for the other side, if necessary
d. See what answers to interrogatories and documents he is going to have to give Raina's lawyer down the line, if necessary
e. All of the above

18. True or False? If Raina loses at the trial court, she has to pay Google's attorney's fees.

a. Yes, that's true - unless she wins on appeal.
b. No, get the heck out of here. That's just malarkey you made up to trick us. Except for special circumstances where the law provides for attorneys' fees, the general rule here in America is that each side pays his/her own lawyer, no matter what.

Isn't this fun???? Keep going ...
19. Even if Raina's lawyer (Dusty) isn't very good, we get the basis of what she's trying to claim here. What is her BEST basis for a lawsuit (read all the choices!) when Dusty gets his act together and redrafts the complaint?

a.First Amendment violation and violation of the Lilly Ledbetter Act
b. Disparate treatment under Title VII on the basis of race and/or gender
c. Disparate impact under Title VII on the basis of race and/or gender
d. Disparate treatment under Title VII on the basis of age and/or race
e. Federal public policy discrimination on the basis of personality characteristics

20. Remember, part of your job in HR is to help the lawyers get what they need to know for this case. You need to start proactively gathering information. Let's start with Steve's memo to the file that he wrote on the day he interviewed Raina (see scenario). Does this memo help or hurt your case in defending Google from a race discrimination case? (Be careful!)

a. It helps! It documents that Steve is without blame.
b. It helps! It documents Steve's reasoning at the time of the refusal to hire wasn't based on a protected class but instead on Raina's overly aggressive personality and possible team "fit" issues.
c. It hurts! It shows that Steve knew she could have done the job and refused to hire her with no reason
d. It hurts! It shows that Steve thought Raina was too aggressive or competitive, which could be another way of saying that he doesn't think she was acting as her gender or her race "should."
e. Both b and d -- It could help and it could hurt depending upon other facts about Steve's decisionmaking (but a and c are wrong)

21. Steve, as you come to find out, can't stand anybody who is too pushy or aggressive. He's a mild kind of manager, and he has assembled a very laid back and mild kind of team. Everyone values getting along very highly, and as a result, they often help each other out (which Steve likes). He's rejected a variety of candidates in the past for exactly the same reason - men, women, different races, different religions ... whatever. Does this help or hurt your case defending Google against Raina's action?
a. It definitely helps!
b. It definitely hurts!

22. Think carefully. What is the one question this case will most likely boil down to on a proof issue?

a. "Would the team have gotten along fine with Raina or not?"

b. "Does Google invest too much discretion in their hiring managers?"

c. "Does Steve see intelligent black women as abrupt, abrasive, and competitive whereas the same behavior seems fine for other races and for men?"

d. "Does Steve have someone in mind for the job and that's the real reason he didn't give it to Raina?"

e. "Would the reasonable interviewer have found Raina's behavior abrasive or abrupt or is Steve just an ultrasensitive guy?"

23. If Google ultimately loses this case but wants to appeal, where will it go next?

a. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
b. The U.S. Supreme Court
c. The California Supreme Court
d. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
e. The U.S. Labor Court of Appeals

Let's leave Google and try a few individual questions!

24. Out of these below, what is/are the best argument out of these that employment-at-will is not fair to employees?

a. Employees commit to the employer and it is not easy to find a new job quickly
b. Employees can quit any time they want
c. Employees don't have to give notice under the law, even if required under company policy
d. It is not fair to expect workers to be on call all the time
e. b and c, but not a or d

25.What is the best statement of the public policy rationale behind Title VII's protections?

a. It doesn't make sense to allow discrimination against people with disabilities who could otherwise be productive members of the workforce
b. It doesn't make sense to allow discrimination against people who are older who could otherwise be productive members of the workforce
c. It doesn't make sense to allow discrimination against people of certain races, religions, or based on gender who could otherwise be productive members of the workforce
d. It doesn't make sense not to pay people for hours they have worked
e. None of the above

26. Which of these actions is most likely to result in a disparate impactgender discrimination suit?

a. Failure to hire a person with a disease because you're afraid it is catching
b. Constructive discharge of a person who is Puerto Rican
c. Selection criteria involving upper body strength
d. A supervisor stalking a female subordinate because he wants to date her
e. Any of the above could result in such a discrimination suit

27. According to the EEOC and your text, is racial discrimination in the workplace better characterized as on the rise or a thing of the past?

a. On the rise; that's why they started the E-Race program
b. A thing of the past; that's why they started the E-Race program
c. On the rise; that's why they issue right to sue letters
d. A thing of the past; that's why they issue very few probable cause letters
e. They do not issue any statistics or statements about trends in discrimination cases

28. Kenneth stutters badly when he is nervous as a result of a chronic and serious disease that he has had since birth. On his new job at a warehouse stocking trucks for the holiday season deliveries, Kenneth's coworkers make fun of him a lot. It hurts his feelings. It doesn't really interfere with his ability to do his job, as he works in his own area, but it is upsetting when he thinks about it afterwards. Kenneth is much more sensitive to having his feelings hurt than most people, probably because it has been happening his whole life. Instead of going to a supervisor or the company ombudsman, Kenneth has been dealing with it by drinking more at night when he gets home and looking for a nicer place to work once the holidays are over. If he quits his job, can he successfully sue the employer for the way he has been treated?

a. Yes, that's a solid constructive discharge and racial discrimination case
b. Yes, that's a solid constructive discharge and disability discrimination case
c. Yes, but only if the company policy has language forbidding this behavior
d. Yes, under the federal Workplace Bullying Act
e. No, he won't be able to successfully sue because he quit and there's no constructive discharge here.

29. Amelia, a college intern with Citibank, is Pakistani. She is thrilled with her internship, as it pays $20/hour and has benefits and a lovely office. Part of her job is cold calling potential clients, which she hates doing but everyone knows it is part of being in financial services. After two weeks, she is assigned cold call lists of Pakistani families under the rationale that she will have a natural connection to those potential customers in terms of dialect and culture. As the bank predicted, Amelia has a lot more success in selling to these clients than her fellow interns have with their randomly generated lists. Even though she's making more money in bonuses, she doesn't like this overall because it is limiting her experience into just cold calling. Is this legal?

a. No! It is disparate treatment.
b. No! It is disparate impact.
c. Yes! It is disparate treatment but legitimate because of a business necessity.
d. Yes! It is disparate treatment but legitimate because of customer preferences
e. Yes, but only if she gets a commission and thus realizes a financial benefit from her higher rate of sales.

Carolyn and the City Cleaners
Carolyn works for the City Cleaners on the (nonunion) maintenance crew of fifty employees. She is extremely attractive and very petite. Although she can do the lifting required in the job, she looks like she couldn't lift more than one pound. She is the only female worker on her shift, and the men are constantly offering to help her, legitimately out of a concern that she might get hurt. She keeps telling them - and showing them - she can do her work just fine. Her foreman assigns her to a desk job because there is such a commotion over Carolyn that production is suffering. He tells her that because she gets paid the same, she shouldn't mind the assignment because it is so much easier.

30. Is this legal?

a. Yes, because there are no laws protecting attractiveness/unattractiveness
b. Yes, because it protects the employer's productivity
c. Yes, because it is her coworkers' fault that she got the desk job, not her employer's.
d. No, because it violates the Civil Rights Act
e. No, because it violates the FLSA
 
31. Carolyn doesn't want that desk job. She applied for a maintenance job and wants to build her skills and use her abilities. She also isn't good at the desk job, of which she is painfully aware. She's tried nicely asking to be put back to her position, tried complaining, and even talked to a lawyer. What is the best advice you could offer her?

a. Quit, because her employer has the right to put her where they want
b. She's stuck because of the doctrine of employment at will
c. File a charge of discrimination and a lawsuit under the ADA
d. Go see her union shop steward
e. File a charge of discrimination under Title VII with the EEOC

32. Carolyn successfully gets transferred back to her old job by complaining enough. Her boss transfers her to a new crew because he is mad at her. Her new crew is told she's a troublemaker, and her new foreman is constantly picking on her. They steal her tools and her work cart when she's not looking, they break things she has fixed, and they keep taking pictures of her posterior side with their cell phones and posting them to a blog. It is almost impossible for her to get her work done. She's had it, so she complains one last time (nothing happens) and she quits. What can we call her quitting?

a. Constructive discharge, since they basically made it impossible for her to do her job
b. Stare decisis, the Latin term for "had to make a decision"
c. Summary judgment
d. Summa voluntis (all voluntary/her choice)
e. A violation of the just cause provision in her collective bargaining agreement

33. If Carolyn eventually sues City Cleaners, what law should she sue under?

a. Civil Rights Act
b. Equal Pay Act
c. Family and Medical Leave Act
d. ADA
e. ADEA

34. Is Carolyn's case of discrimination hurt because she quit (and she wasn't fired)?

a. No, she still has a legal claim because it was "constructive discharge" and thus she won't be blamed for leaving because it wasn't entirely voluntary
b. No, because she was being racially harassed
c. Yes, her claim is now barred because she voluntarily quit and could have stayed and thus she brought the harm on herself and the employer cannot be blamed
d. Yes, because she would have been fired for just cause

The Hospital of Injured Children (THIC) (Anytown, NJ USA)

35.THIC, a large nonunion hospital specializing in the care of children determines that children feel more nurtured being cared for by female nurses, presumably because they remind them of their moms. It is important for a child's care to trust his or her caregiver, and so the hospital implements an all-female nursing staff. Legal?

a. Yes, if the evidence is solid that children prefer females
b. No, that's illegal gender discrimination
c. Yes, if there are alternative jobs made available for men
d. No, that's illegal under the Equal Pay Act

36.A neonatal ICU nurse named Christine is asked to stay for a second shift because they are short handed. She refuses, as she needs to get home to take care of her kids when her husband goes to work. She gets written up and suspended for one week without pay. Is this legal under the laws we have learned about?

a. Yes, if it is enforced equally across genders/races/etc.
b. No, it violates the Fair Labor Standards Act
c. No, it violates the Civil Rights Act
d. No, it violates the collective bargaining agreement
e. No, it violates employment-at-will

37.After Christine's suspension without pay is over, she returns to THIC and is again asked to stay for a second shift because they are short handed. She has anticipated this, and arranged childcare. Her problem is that she is instructed to go work on the adolescent ICU and she's never been up there to work on "the big kids" - she's been trained only to work on little, itty bitty babies! She doesn't know the equipment or the procedures, and she'll be the nurse in charge because they are so short staffed. She offers to stay in her regular neonatal ICU unit for another shift but her supervisor insists she go upstairs and work a full shift in the adolescent ICU. She refuses out of fear of committing malpractice, and receives a second write up and suspension without pay. Is this legal?

a. Yes, if it is enforced equally across genders/races/etc.
b. No, it violates the Fair Labor Standards Act
c. No, it violates the Civil Rights Act
d. No, it violates the collective bargaining agreement
e. No, it violates employment-at-will

38.Christine has absolutely had it now with THIC, and she figures she will go elsewhere where she is better treated. She calls in and tells her supervisor that she quits. Her supervisor says that she is on the schedule for next weekend and must come in. Further, her supervisor notes that THIC's policy is to require two weeks' notice for an employee to quit. Can Christine legally quit over the phone and not come in for her shift or give two weeks' notice?

a. Yes, due to the doctrine of employment at will
b. No, because it is illegal
c. No, because the company has a policy against it
d. No, because it is poor professionalism

39. Christine finds a better job at CHOA (Children's Hospital of Anytown), which is also severely short-staffed on nurses. Because she feels she has the bargaining power, she negotiates for a standard individual contract of employment - it has a just cause requirement for dismissal and says she will work for CHOA for two years at $75,000/year and at the end of that time both parties will renegotiate. Shockingly, she is again ordered to work outside of her training in the adolescent intensive care unit. She has only been trained on babies - itty bitty babies at that. She refuses, just as she did at THIC. Can she be fired?

a. Yes, due to the doctrine of employment at will
b. Yes, because she is a repeat violator of refusing to do what she is told
c. No, her contract has a "just cause" requirement
d. No, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
e. No, because she has a union representing her now

40. CHOA has a policy that entirely forbids smoking, and Christine's coworker Arnie secretly smokes. Christine knows that Arnie doesn't have an individual contract of employment or a union, so she is worried about him getting fired. Christine knows they're going to make Arnie pee in a cup, and it will show nicotine use. He says, "Oh, Christine, don't worry about me. I never smoke at work or even on days I am scheduled. I only smoke at the bar when I go out with my friends. They can't fire me!" Is Arnie right?

a. No, he can still be fired under the doctrine of employment at will
b. Yes, because what he does on his own time is no business of the employer's
c. Yes, because nicotine is not an illegal substance
d. Yes, because of both b and c

41. Can CHOA legally implement a policy forbidding drinking both inside and outside of work?

a. Yes
b. No, because it is a disparate impact violation
c. No, because drinking is legal
d. No, because some people are addicted to drinking
e. No, because there is no link between drinking off the job and the ability to do the job

My Pediatrician, Dr. Pops (Jenkintown, PA)
My pediatrician, Dr. Pops, has been practicing as part of a large (100 doctor) consortium for almost forty years. He is getting close to retirement, but he doesn't really want to give it up. Even though the consortium employs hundreds of nurses, one hundred doctors, and hundreds of staff workers, Dr. Pop's office is a one-doctor, five nurse, three physicians' assistants, and ten staff worker show.

The hardest thing for Dr. Pops is being on call every weekend, when he and his wife would like to take short but fun trips. He feels he can handle his office practice during the week but that he would like to hire a doctor or two to help him out. Most of all, he wants the new doctor(s) to take weekend call duty so that he can go skiing in Vermont! He begins to interview potential new hires.

42. His patients are used to having a male doctor, and Dr. Pops feels that having a female doctor would be good for the practice so that kids can see that both genders can be doctors. He recently hired a male nurse just for this reason - so that kids can see that nurses can be "boys" or "girls" just as well. He interviews four doctors for his one or two possible positions. Three of them are male, and they are better qualified than the other candidate who is female. The males have better medical school educations, medical school grades, more experience, more diverse residencies - you name it. On every single aspect, the three males are better qualified. Still, he really wants to add a female doctor to his practice to "round out the team" in terms of gender. What do you advise him?

a. Hey, you're the boss and the top doctor - hire whoever you really want!
b. Hmmm ... if you like the female doctor better because she's female, she should get one of the positions, like you did with the nurse.
c. Well, you weren't sure if you were going to add one or two doctors - why don't you hire the best qualified male for the first spot, and then you can hire the female doctor for the optional second spot.
d. Because you are doing it for the kids in the practice, this is a good reason and you can factor gender into your decision.
e. Considering gender in with everything else is illegal and you shouldn't do it.

43. Benjamin Mazzei is the doctor who Dr. Pops is most impressed with - far and away. He wants to offer him a job, but when he meets with Benjamin a second time there's a problem. Benjamin tells him that his religion forbids him from using a phone or a car on the Sabbath - one of the two days of the weekend. Thus, he wouldn't be able to cover weekend call duty as Dr. Pops wanted. Dr. Pops decides, sadly, not to hire him because he bought new skis and needs someone to cover him while he is away in Vermont. Is there a legal concern here?

a. Maybe; Dr. Pops may be violating Dr. Mazzei's First Amendment rights
b. No, this is a violation of Dr. Mazzei's Title VII of the Civil Rights Act rights because Dr. Pops didn't even try to see if there was an accommodation
c. Yes, this is fine because there is no law that applies here
d. No, this is illegal under the doctrine of no-weekend-call-duty-ever

44. The second doctor, Brad Smith, who Dr. Pops is considering hiring is openly gay. Dr. Pops doesn't care, but he knows that some of his patients' mothers will be very uncomfortable with this. He struggles with the issue a bit, knowing he will lose some patients if he hires a homosexual doctor into the practice. Ultimately, he decides he isn't going to cave to some soccer moms' ridiculous pressure and he is going to offer Dr. Smith the job. Dr. Smith is happy to take weekend call duty! Under federal law is it legal for Dr. Pops to ask Dr. Smith not to disclose his sexual orientation to his patients and their families?

a. Yes, the courts will probably say it is legal but the EEOC would view it as a form of gender discrimination
b. Yes, both the courts and the EEOC would find this discriminatory behavior legal
c. No, because it is an illegal disparate impact policy
d. No, because it is an illegal infringement on First Amendment freedom of speech
e. No, because sexual orientation is a protected category under Title VII

45. Dr. Pops hires the female doctor, Alyssa Childs, and Brad Smith. He is now able to go to Vermont and ski! Each doctor has requested an individual contract of employment. What should that contract specify? Dr. Pops wants to get the paperwork done right and right away!

a. Typically, if an employee signs the employment handbook it is the same as an individual contract of employment.
b. An individual contract of employment is also called a collective bargaining agreement, and the terms are negotiated between the employer and the union
c. There are no common elements to individual contracts of employment - anything goes!
d. These contracts usually specify the length of time the employee will work for the employer, the amount of money he/she will be paid, and that there must be "just cause" for the employer to terminate the contract before the term is up.
e. These contracts usually specify that the employee will not compete with the employer for a given length of time after no longer working there and will not take secrets or client lists with him/her upon departure.

Emergency Delivery at Smithfield Hospital, Smithfield, NJ

Late last night, an ambulance brought the Carringtons in to the trauma unit at Smithfield Hospital - a nonunion hospital employing four hundred employees. After an auto accident, Mrs. Carrington was going into early labor. Her life and the life of the baby were both at serious risk. There was no time to waste. After informing Mr. Carrington of this fact, Mr. Carrington stated that he and his wife did not want any African-Americans touching his wife or the baby. Mrs. Carrington, despite being in great distress, confirmed this was true. He also stated that he didn't want anyone touching his wife or the baby who was not a heterosexual.

The doctor on call, Dr. Mavis, was African-American as were four of the five emergency room nurses on staff. Smithfield Hospital has a nondiscrimination policy in accordance with the law. It is not clear at this time what the sexual orientations of the staff members were. Mr. Carrington stated that if their wishes were not respected, they would sign themselves out of the hospital "against medical advice." Although Mr. Carrington was injured, his injuries were nowhere near as serious as the injuries sustained by Mrs. Carrington and the baby she was carrying. Dr. Mavis was clear - if the baby wasn't delivered immediately, both Mrs. Carrington and the baby would likely die. Mr. Carrington refused to listen and loudly stated that he and his wife were leaving.

The one original emergency room staff member who was not African-American refused to treat any of the Carringtons if his team wasn't permitted to treat them. Smithfield Hospital's management decided to bring in a staff from a different unit to accommodate the Carringtons' wishes. After treatment, Mrs. Carrington delivered a premature but healthy Baby Carrington and all three family members are out of medical danger.

46. Did the hospital act legally?

a. Yes, because it must respect its patients' wishes
b. Yes, because it was an emergency and the baby could have died
c. Yes, because it was a health and safety issue
d. No, this was illegal racial discrimination by the hospital

47. If Dr. Mavis decided to sue the Carringtons under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, would she win?

a. Yes, because they racially discriminated
b. Yes, because they caused harm
c. No, because they are not her employer
d. No, because they were in New Jersey

48. If Dr. Mavis decided to sue Smithfield Hospital under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, would she win?

a. Yes, because they violated Title VII
b. No, because there was a health and safety issue

49. If credible research showed that Smithfield Hospital was located in an area where most residents held bigoted attitudes, what should the hospital do under the law?

a. Adopt a policy that complied with its' customers/patients wishes
b. Figure out a way that staffing requests could be met with minimal disruption
c. Refuse to violate the discrimination laws and their own nondiscrimination policy
d. Hire with those racial preferences in mind

50. What if the hospital, to get around future "Carrington" problems, decided only to hire light-skinned African Americans in the hopes that they could "pass" for white under emergency conditions like this one. Is this a good idea?

a. Yes, under the doctrine of employment at will.
b. Yes, it gets them around all sorts of potential problems.
c. No, it is illegal racial discrimination under Title VII
d. No, it is illegal color discrimination under Title VII
e. No, it is illegal under the Stupid Employer Decision Act of 2014.

And now you are half-way done! Congratulations!

(Grumpy Cat is proud of you ... Keep going ...)

Some random questions thrown in here for spice ...
51. What is it called when you ask the Supreme Court of the United States to hear your claim?
a. Petition for appellate jurisdiction
b. Petition for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV)
c. Petition for bona fides
d.Petition for certiorari
e. Petition for diversity jurisdiction

52. What is it called when a judge has to follow the rulings of higher courts on similar cases with similar facts and legal issues?

a. Certiorari
b. Bona fides
c. Prima Facie
d. Stare Decisis
e. Judge on judge bullying

53. A plaintiff needs to allege a list of elements of a claim in order to proceed to bring a legal action on them. What is this list called in Latin?

a. Certiorari
b. BFOQ (Bona Fide Occupational Qualification)
c. Prima Facie
d. Deus ex machine
e. Veni, vidi, vici

54. Let's say you're a plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal case. You want to bring suit in federal court, not state court. What do you need to get your case heard by the federal court?

a. Federal trial courts will hear any cases that are brought to them
b. Diversity of state citizenship with your employer plus a minimum claim dollar amount
c. You need to be suing under a federal law, like Title VII or the ADA
d. Either a or c, but not b
e. Either b or c but not a

55. After the plaintiff alleges a cause of action, and the case proceeds, the plaintiff needs to come up with proof to support his or her claim. How does the plaintiff gather facts relevant to his or her claim to be used in court?

a. Requests for answers to interrogatories about facts relevant to the claim
b. Depositions of relevant witnesses
c. Requests for production of documents relevant to the claim
d. All of the above
e. None of a, b, or c - instead, plaintiffs must seek a motion to compel from the court presiding over the case

56. Does a plaintiff always get the choice of whether to have a jury trial in an employment case?

a. Yes
b. No; it depends on the law the plaintiff is suing under
c. No; it depends on the judge's decision of whether a jury is necessary
d. No; it depends on whether the plaintiff is in federal or state court
e. No; bench trials are mandatory in real (not mock) employment law cases

57. In order to appeal an unfavorable outcome from a jury trial, the appellant must be arguing that who made a mistake? (This is a short question, but it is complex. First, think about who is the finder of fact and who is the finder of law. Then, think about what appellate courts will consider and decide.)

a. The judge
b. The jury

58. In plain English, when a party is filing a "motion for JNOV" with the court, what is the party saying?

a. Your Honor, the complaint doesn't even state a prima facie case - it doesn't even allege the right stuff to show any law was violated here!
b. Your Honor, the jury must have been comprised of idiots - there is no way that their verdict complies with what you told them to do and what they saw in court. Please just say no to that jury verdict.
c. Your Honor, no need for a trial here. Even if you believe everything the other side is saying, and all the discovery that's happened is viewed in a light favorable to the other side, there are no issues to be decided here - I still win.
d. Your Honor, please hear my case!
e. Your Honor, I need more time - can you please give me a little more time to get my stuff in to the court?

59. In plain English, when a party is filing a "motion to dismiss" with the court, what is the party saying?

a. Your Honor, the complaint doesn't even state a prima facie case - it doesn't even allege the right stuff to show any law was violated here!
b. Your Honor, the jury must have been comprised of idiots - there is no way that their verdict complies with what you told them to do and what they saw in court. Please just say no to that jury verdict.
c. Your Honor, no need for a trial here. Even if you believe everything the other side is saying, and all the discovery that's happened is viewed in a light favorable to the other side, there are no issues to be decided here - I still win.
d. Your Honor, please hear my case!
e. Your Honor, I need more time - can you please give me a little more time to get my stuff in to the court?

60. In plain English, when a party is filing a motion for "summary judgment" with the court, what is the party saying?

a. Your Honor, the complaint doesn't even state a prima facie case - it doesn't even allege the right stuff to show any law was violated here!
b. Your Honor, the jury must have been comprised of idiots - there is no way that their verdict complies with what you told them to do and what they saw in court. Please just say no to that jury verdict.
c. Your Honor, no need for a trial here. Even if you believe everything the other side is saying, and all the discovery that's happened is viewed in a light favorable to the other side, there are no issues to be decided here - I still win.
d. Your Honor, please hear my case!
e. Your Honor, I need more time - can you please give me a little more time to get my stuff in to the court?

61. What's the name of a person whose job it is to help resolve disputes within the organization but still stay neutral and not represent the company or the employee (even though this person is an employee of the organization)?

a. HR Generalist
b. Ombudsman
c. Mediator/Arbitrator
d. Supervisor of Whining, Issues, Spats, and Strife (SWISS)
e. Chief Head of Employee Disagreements , Disputes, Arguments, and Rants (CHEDDAR)

62. What do you think is one of the most difficult parts of a judge's job in a Title VII jury trial?

a. Deciding who is telling the truth and who is lying
b. Deciding which documents best prove the arguments being made
c. Trying to get opposing parties to find common ground to come to an agreement
d. Figuring out how the law applies to the case and instructing the jury properly
e. Making a strong opening argument

63. In all the employment discrimination cases we have read, real and hypothetical, which business function is most critical to mounting a good employer prevention and defense to claims of illegal discrimination or harassment?
a. Finance
b. Marketing
c. Human Resource Management (HRM)
d. Research and Development (R&D)
e. Sales

64. In all of these areas in which a company has policies and past practice, which area(s) is/are likely to be critically important in defending accusations of illegal disparate treatment?
a. Training and Development
b. Recruitment and Selection
c. Performance Appraisal
d. Compensation
e. All of the above

65. What does a "right to sue" letter from the EEOC mean?

a. There has been illegal discrimination found and the plaintiff should sue
b. There has been no investigation by the EEOC
c. The EEOC has found no illegal discrimination but the plaintiff can go to court because he/she has exhausted his/her administrative remedies
d. The EEOC found that there was no problem with the plaintiff's standing to sue the employer in federal court so jurisdiction is appropriate
e. The EEOC is telling the employer to settle the case before the plaintiff brings a lawsuit

Brotherly Love

Chipotle is a chain of Tex-Mex restaurants that provide food through a cafeteria-style line and have casual seating for diners. Cameron and his sister Carla started working at the Chipotle in Willow Grove, Pennsylvania on January 21, 2013. Carla usually cooks the meat and chops the ingredients in the back kitchen and Cameron usually serves the customers and works the register.

Chipotle gets crazy busy at lunchtime, when all the workers in the area want their burritos. Carla gets called to work the service line next to Cameron. She's never done it before, and has never received training. She is very nervous and Cameron keeps making fun of her. In her haste to serve customers, she drops a huge blob of guacamole on the cement floor, which her brother Cameron slips in. He hits his head on the tortilla chip shelving on the way down. Cameron suffered a broken wrist, three broken ribs, and a concussion that has resulted in total amnesia and vision difficulties. He no longer recognizes his sister Carla.

66. Can Cameron sue Chipotle?

a. No, because it was Carla's fault
b. No, because he was partially to blame for the accident
c. No, because of the workers compensation laws
d. Yes, he can sue
e. No, because he can't remember that he works there.

67. Can Cameron sue Carla personally?

a. No, because he was partially to blame for the accident
b. No, because of the unemployment compensation laws
c. No, because he assumed the risk of dropped guacamole
d. Yes, he can sue, but his mom's going to be mad
e. No, but only because he can't remember she's family.

68. Let's pretend for this question that Cameron can sue only one party - Carla or Chipotle. (Let's also leave out how mad Cameron's mom is at both of them.) Why, in practical terms, would Cameron rather sue Chipotle than sue Carla?

a. Because he is madder at Chipotle than Carla
b. Because Carla doesn't have as much money as Chipotle does
c. Because he harbors resentment against Chipotle's burritos
d. Because it is more Chipotle's fault than it is Carla'a
e. Because he wants Carla to babysit for him someday

69. If Cameron does file a negligence suit in tort against Chipotle, what's his MOST IMPORTANT LEGAL ARGUMENT?

a. There was no training for Carla and that's why she dropped the guacamole
b. There are no rules prohibiting joking around on the front server line
c. He was acting outside the course of his ordinary employment when he was teasing his sister
d. He fell on the guacamole through no fault of his own
e. Guacamole is a hazard that should have been disclosed under OSHA's general duty clause

70. If Cameron does file suit against Chipotle, what's Chipotle's MOST IMPORTANT LEGAL ARGUMENT?

a. There is no training that can teach you not to drop guacamole
b. It was a common accident and accidents do happen
c. Cameron was acting within the course of his ordinary employment, even though he was teasing his sister while he was working because people often joke around on the job
d. The injury is Carla's fault and not Chipotle's
e. Guacamole is not an inherently deadly working condition

71. Can Cameron get workers' compensation benefits if he caused the guacamole accident by distracting Carla?

a. Yes, if he was within the regular course of his employment duties when he got hurt
b. No, because if you cause your own accident you can't get workers' compensation benefits

72. Under all the facts as described in the original scenario, will Cameron win a negligence lawsuit in tort against Chipotle?

a. No, because it will be covered under workers compensation laws and he can't sue
b. No, because it will be covered under Carla's insurance because she caused the accident
c. Yes, because the employer violated the duty of care by not providing front line training and then assigning Carla to work there
d. Yes, because guacamole is an inherently hazardous substance covered by OSHA

Quick, Unrelated Questions

73. What is the FMLA?

a. The law that gives unpaid time off for family and personal matters
b. The law that gives paid time off for family and personal matters
c. The law that divides workers into exempt/nonexempt
d. The law that governs plant closings and mass layoffs
e. The law that overrides employment at will

74. True or False: There is a federal law that protects you from discrimination in employment based on an employer's knowledge of your genetic code (DNA)?

a. True, it's called the DNA Discrimination Act of 2015
b. True, it's called the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)
c. False, but maybe someday that will be a law!
d. False, you cannot have an anti-discrimination law based on something that cannot be seen in someone's outward appearance

75. True or False: Protected classes in employment law are always based on something that you just are, and cannot change.
a. True
b. False

76. True or False: Treating all employees the same guarantees an employer will not be committing illegal employment discrimination.
a. True
b. False

Plumbing, Inc.

John has worked for Plumbing, Inc. for 3 years, while Jackie has worked with Plumbing, Inc. for 6 years. They work in two different regions, each supervising a particular area and managing a team. They both have essentially identical performance reviews. Juan is a Regional Manager who oversees multiple areas, including John's area but not Jackie's area. Juan is retiring and has been given authority to begin interviewing to fill his position. John has worked in for Juan since he began, while Jackie has worked in a different region and Juan doesn't know her very well. After interviewing both John and Jackie, Juan chooses to promote John.

77. Is this gender discrimination?

a) Yes! Jackie has been working for the company longer than John and has the same performance record, therefore she is being discriminated for promotion.
b) No! They are equally qualified.
c) No! John works directly with Juan, therefore it is not discriminating.
d) Maybe! We need more information to see if Juan did not hire Jackie because of her gender.
e) I think there is only discrimination when employees are not given cookies!

78. If Jackie sues, what theory of discrimination is Jackie proceeding under?

a. Disparate impact
b. Disparate treatment
c. Retaliation
d. Harassment
e. None of the above

79. Which of the following would be good proof for the employer of a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the failure to promote Jackie?

a. Juan's testimony about his excellent history of working with John
b. Documents showing John supervised a smaller area than Jackie
c. Interrogatories from the company that show that 50% of promotions are women
d. Deposition testimony from Jackie that she had been promised by her supervisor that she was next in line for promotion.

Lies and Candy Don't Go Together

Mike works for a small independent candy store in Hawaii (ten employees, nonunion). He is not in the union and has no special contract. He is an excellent worker and the customers seem to love him. Brian, the owner, hires his son Jim to work along with Mike. Mike constantly has to clean up after Jim's mistakes and has to cover for him when he disappears for hours. Jim is tired of how much everyone talks about how great Mike is, so he decides to frame him. Jim tells his father that he has seen Mike stealing from the register on several occasions (It is actually Jimmy who is stealing). Brian knows that money has been missing so he decides to take his son's word, even though he really likes Mike, and fires Mike with no discussion.

80. Mike is outraged that he is fired without even knowing why. He feels that this is illegal. Is it?

a. Yes it is illegal; Mike did nothing wrong.
b. Yes it is illegal, and Mike can sue for wrongful termination.
c. Yes it is illegal because Mike is protected under Title VII from firing without a reason.
d. No it is not illegal because Mike is an at-will employee and can be fired for any reason so long as it isn't an illegal reason

81. If Mike decides to bring suit, will the rebuttable presumption arise in Mike's suit?

a. Yes, but it will not help him win his case
b. Yes, and it will help him win his case
c. No, the rebuttable presumption doesn't apply here
d. No, due to workers' compensation doctrine
e. No, due to Mike's failure to exhaust administrative remedies

Overtime Woes

Cameron has a Ph.D. in rock geology. He is a science professor during the school year and a lifeguard at a summer sleep-away camp in the summer. He likes the ability to get out into nature and work with younger kids in his summer job, and he likes being around smart, hard-working college students in his regular job.

82. When processing his paperwork, the intern to the HR generalist for the camp notices a form requiring Cameron be declared "Exempt" or "Nonexempt" and wonders what law this refers to. You know - it's the:

a. FMLA
b. ADA
c. FLSA
d. Workers compensation law
e. Individual contract of employment law

83. The intern classifies Cameron as "exempt" under the learned professional exemption. Under this designation, is Cameron entitled to overtime for any hours he works over forty in a week?

a. Yes
b. No

84. Is this the proper designation for Cameron?

a. Yes, the man has a Ph.D. in rocks, for goodness sake!
b. No, the designation needs to be made based on the job duties and the person
c. Maybe; the designation is based on both the job duties and the person's education.

85. In general, if an employer makes a misclassification re: exempt/nonexempt status for the overtime law and is later sued, which mistake will be the most costly?

a. Classifying one worker as exempt when he/she should have been nonexempt
b. Classifying one worker as nonexempt when he/she should have been exempt
c. Classifying a bunch of workers (like a whole job category) as exempt when they should have been nonexempt
d. Classifying a bunch of workers (like a whole job category) as nonexempt when they should have been exempt
e. All misclassifications carry the same fine, regardless of direction of the misclassification and regardless of the number of workers affected

Accountant Trying to Minimize Risky Business

Anthony is the accounting manager at a fortune 500 company located in Fort Washington, PA. He has been working for the company for five years and has a reputation for being a ladies man since he is young and quite handsome. Every secretary he has employed has "come on" to him! Single, married, young, old, all the women cannot resist his charm. His last secretary, Lucy, quit and then filed an EEOC complaint against him when he would not date her! Anthony is now looking to hire a new secretary to fill the vacancy but he is scared of a harassment suit. He is looking to hire only a male; he would be willing to hire a female if her sexual orientation is such that she is only interested in females. He is trying desperately to avoid the same issues that he has been having for the past five years.

86. Is Anthony legally allowed to hire like this?

a. Absolutely- He is looking to hire either a male or female, so he is not discriminating against any protected class

b. Absolutely not- this is gender discrimination "plus" like we saw in the Martin Marietta case

c. Absolutely- there is no federal protection against affinity orientation.

d. Absolutely not- this is a disparate impact lawsuit waiting to happen.

87. Anthony decides to make his hiring dependent on the applicant passing a football fantasy league knowledge quiz - he figures that will get him around any protected class discrimination issues! He is quite proud of himself, and he's right - as it turns out, more than half the women failed the quiz and over half the men who applied passed it! Is this a legal hiring selection test?

a. Yes; so long as male and female applicants had the same opportunities to pass it
b. No; it is unrelated to the duties and had a disparate impact on a gender basis
c. Yes; it is a valid and reliable selection test for the job for which he is hiring
d. Yes; so long as it is in the company handbook, it is legal

Beautiful Boutique in the Mountains of Montana

88. Klara works at clothing store in downtown Helena, Montana and has recently put on a noticeable amount of weight. The manager does not think she looks as attractive and cool and she once did; can he legally fire her because of this?

a. Yes, because of the employment-at-will doctrine
b. No, because there is no employment protection for unattractiveness
c. No, because Klara works in Montana and the state requires "just-cause" to dismiss an employee
d. Yes, Klara should have known better than to eat at a pizza place every day on her lunch break!

Bread Man Bakery

Ginger is an employee at Bread Man Bakery. She has an orange catnamed Mr. Lion who sheds a lot. Ginger shows up to work a lot withorange cat hair all over her white uniform. Her manager told her shehad to keep her uniform clean or she would have to get rid of her cat.Ginger had a hard time keeping her white uniform clean because Mr. Lion was just so fluffy! Her manager told her it was the cat or her job.Ginger needed the money and had to give up Mr. Lion. The once happyGinger was now seeing a therapist twice a week due to the loss of Mr.Lion.

89. What tort claim can she make and winagainst Bread Man Bakery?

a. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
b. Loss of Consortium
c. Negligent Supervision/Negligent Hiring
d. Reckless Disregard for Fluffy Cats
e. None of the Above

90. After much investigation, it appears that Ginger's manager intentionally made her give up Mr. Lion because he was jealous as to the happiness that cat gave her. He wanted her to be miserable and then, according to his plan, she would turn to him for comfort. He has had a crush on Ginger for years, and he is allergic to cats. Now that we know this was an intentional act, what tort claim can she make and win against Bread Man Bakery?

a. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
b. Loss of Consortium
c. Negligent Supervision/Negligent Hiring
d. Reckless Disregard for Fluffy Cats
e. None of the Above

91. Why is Ginger so limited in her choice of torts against the bakery?

a. Because bakers bake tortes, thus they are exempt from all tort cases
b. Because of the employment-at-will doctrine
c. Because of the system of workers compensation laws
d. Because of proof issues
e. Because Ginger has suffered only mental damages

Tutors-R-Us

Jane opens up a small tutoring business and wants to hire only women because she believes they are naturally better teachers and are good workers. She hopes to eventually expand the business, but for now only hires 12 women to work part-time. Mike is a math teacher at the local middle school and recently got his master's degree. He is overwhelmed with student loans and wants to make some extra money. He applies to be a part-time tutor at Jane's tutoring business and aced his interview. Mike knows he's got this job in the bag because was the only one who has a master's degree and he had the most experience out of everyone who applied. Two weeks later he finds out that Jane hired a women who was extremely less experienced than him and has only taught pre-school.

92. Mike is furious, and wants to sue Jane for gender discrimination. Does he have a claim under Title VII?

a. Of course, Jane is only hiring women and therefore discriminating against men
b. No, because it is legal under federal law
c. Yes, but only if Mike can prove that he was more qualified than the women that was hired.
d. No, because there is no discrimination happening here

93. If Mike decides to bring suit immediately, what will the court likely do?

a. Dismiss with prejudice
b. Dismiss without prejudice
c. Judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV)
d. Depends entirely on what the jury decides

94. Can Mike bring a disparate impact claim and win?

a. Yes, because gender is not a BFOQ for tutoring
b. Yes, because Jane is intentionally discriminating
c. No, because this is not illegal under Title VII
d. No, because the selection test is reliable and valid
e. No, because he has a valid disparate treatment claim

Bigger Tutors-R-Us

Joeruns a huge tutoring business and wants to hire only women because he believes they are naturally better teachers and are good workers. He has operations in fifty states and employs over five hundred workers. Matthew is a math teacher at the local middle school and recently got his master's degree. He is overwhelmed with student loans and wants to make some extra money. He applies to be a part-time tutor at Jane's tutoring business and aced his interview. Matthew knows he's got this job in the bag because was the only one who has a master's degree and he had the most experience out of everyone who applied. Two weeks later he finds out that Joe hired a women who was extremely less experienced than him and has only taught pre-school.

95. Matthew is furious, and wants to sue Joe for gender discrimination. Does he have a claim under Title VII?

a. Of course, Joe is only hiring women and therefore discriminating against men
b. No, because it is legal under federal law
c. No, because the hiring decision maker is male, so Matthew cannot make out the prima facie case elements
d. No, because there is no discrimination happening here

96. If Matthew decides to bring suit immediately, what will the court likely do?

a. Dismiss with prejudice
b. Dismiss without prejudice
c. Judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV)
d. Depends entirely on what the jury decides

97. Can Matthew bring a disparate impact claim and win?

a. Yes, because gender is not a BFOQ for tutoring
b. Yes, because Jane is intentionally discriminating
c. No, because this is not illegal under Title VII
d. No, because the selection test is reliable and valid
e. No, because he has a valid disparate treatment claim

Miscellaneous Questions to Wrap it Up! All True or False.

98. An employee handbook is the same as an individual contract of employment.

a. True
b. False

99. Sometimes employers don't want to give detailed references about their former employees due to concerns about possible defamation claims.

a. True
b. False

100.True or false: If a policy is in the company handbook, it must be followed no matter what the law or public policy says.

a. True! The company handbook reigns supreme.
b. False! The company handbook is a good guide, but it doesn't always capture what's legal and/or fair in every circumstance.